The Ombudsman Calls for Greater Oversight of Subsidised Education to Prevent Fee Collection

More inspections for subsidised education centres. This is the demand made public this Tuesday by the Ombudsman of the Valencian Community, Ángel Luna, following the "numerous" complaints received from families who enrol their children in these types of centres.

According to the institution in a statement, these complaints warned of the fees demanded by these centres, whether in the form of complementary activities, extracurriculars, or supposedly voluntary donations. For the Ombudsman, these practices "perpetuate school segregation based on economic reasons," and violate the principle of free basic education.

For all these reasons, the Ombudsman recommends intensifying educational inspections, intervening in any practice contrary to the concert regime, adopting strategies to eliminate segregation derived from fees, and ensuring transparency in the authorisation and justification of charges made by the centres.

The resolution also warns that the application of the school admission process under the single district model and freedom of choice of centre may worsen the situation. According to the Ombudsman, this model favours the concentration of students with greater resources in certain centres, which deepens the socio-economic gap and perpetuates school segregation.

In the report sent by the Ministry to the Ombudsman during the investigation, the low number of officially registered complaints is striking, despite the magnitude of the problem. In the last four academic years, the Educational Inspection has recorded only eight complaints in the province of Valencia, another eight in Alicante —including a particularly contentious case with 67 complaints related to the collection of communication and school meal services— and none in Castellón.

The Ombudsman believes these figures contrast with the reality of a subsidised network that educates more than 152,000 students in 375 centres across the Valencian Community, which, in his view, evidences a "lack of proactive oversight" by the Administration.